HARDEE ROAD CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS AND GOVT RESPONSE.pdf

FA301623B0002 Repair Hardee Road Q&A

1. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.1 SD-05 Design Data, 95%, 100%, and IFC submittals are required. To best achieve the design schedule given for the 95% Design Package (35 days per 01 11 00 1.3), we suggest a 65%, 100%, and IFC submittal schedule. This will allow the govt to review the plan and make any potential changes earlier in the process and avoid costly rework and delay. A 65% set is also more achievable in the 35-day timeframe given.

802 CES Response: We will modify the Statement of Work (SOW) to include 65% of the design to provide more time.

2. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.i.a, a roadway cross section is used as a reference from

Wilson Way and modified for this project. This is GREAT for competitive bidding. Is this section to be constructed as specified, or is the Design Build team to perform geotechnical and other analysis to confirm/amend the section as necessary? Also referenced in 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.i.e. is that the contractor is not required to provide a Geotech.

802 CES Response: We will modify the SOW to include the provision of a Geotech report and traffic count in order for the Design Engineer to provide a pavement design.

See section 1.4.1.i.b for added requirement. The SOW was also updated to have the cross-section provided for bidding purposes only.

3. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.i.a, the below pavement section is proposed.

Asphalt Concrete Surface Course TXDOT Type ‘D’: 1.5 in Asphalt Concrete Base Course TXDOT Type ‘B’: 3 in Aggregate Base Course: 9 in Lime Stabilizer Subgrade: 8 in Subgrade to be reworked to 95% compaction: 10 in Include a Surface Tack Coat and Prime Coat

As this is a Design Build project, we suggest allowing alternate sections that achieve the same structural number. This can allow safer and faster construction, minimize traffic impact to the base, provide better pavement performance both in the immediate and long terms and/or provide a better wearing course while achieving the same structural integrity specified in this representative section. Please advise if a comparable section can be designed as long as it achieves the same structural number as the section referenced above?

802 CES Response: We are now requiring the design engineer in the project to provide a design. See response #2 .

4. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.i.a, a lime stabilized section is proposed. This process is both costly and requires a significant cure time while exposed to weather elements. We suggest allowing stabilizing alternatives such as geogrid / geotextiles and other industry standards. As this is a Design Build project, please advise if uses of alternative subgrade stabilization methods are acceptable?

802 CES Response: For bidding purposes, assume lime stabilization will be used.

However, the Design Engineer can propose a stabilizing alternative such as geogrid /geotextiles in design, but it will be subjected to Government Approval.

5. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.i.a, a 10” section of subgrade is required to be reworked in addition to the 8” lime stabilized section. This would require removal of the 8” lime stabilized section completely from the site and stockpiled to process the 10” section of subgrade underneath. This is costly and not seen as necessary and is likely to be native material in compacted condition. It should be noted that Attachment 5-Appendix E Structural Section does not include rework of 10” of subgrade below the 8” lime stabilized subgrade. We suggest removal of 10” reworked section consistent with Attachment 5 Appendix E. Our understanding at the site visit is there are certain budget constraints and this course of action would not be the best use of the project budget. Please advise if it acceptable to remove this requirement from the scope.

802 CES Response: We will remove the rework of 10” subgrade below the 8” lime stabilization.

6. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.i.b, a proof-roll is required. This is typically done when subgrade is not to be processed, but rather left in place. Proof-rolling after processing of 10” of subgrade is not a standard process as 95% compaction would be already achieved on that surface. It is recommended that processing of 10” of subgrade be removed from the SOW and instead only require proof-roll per 1.2.1.i.b to achieve 95% compaction. Please advise.

802 CES Response: See response #5.

7. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.i.f, many areas of the street will have right and left gutters at different elevations. In these areas, 2% cross-slope from the low side will result in less than 2% on the high side. 2% on the high side will result in steeper than 2% on the low side. Please confirm which condition to design to.

802 CES Response: SOW has been updated to require a minimum 1% slope from pavement crown. Design Engineer shall make a judgment call on which side controls in order to not go below the minimum percentage unless it is physically impossible.

However, positive drainage must be maintained. We add the replacement of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk to the SOW to aid this effort.

8. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.i.f, there are areas where the road “washes out” meaning there is no crown and water flows from one side of the road to the other (most notably at the large drainage inlet in phase 1). In these areas, cross slopes may be less than 2%, or even 1%, and are subject to whatever elevations the existing gutters are at. In these areas, we can accept the slopes as is, or reconstruct sections of curb to achieve desired slopes, please advise. During the site visit we discussed that the opposite side of the road would need the curb raised which would also necessitate replacement of sidewalk to alleviate a difference in elevation between the curb and the sidewalk. This area would encompass approximately 200’ of sidewalk and curb replacement. Please advise if this should be included in the bidders proposals?

802 CES Response: See response #7.

9. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.a.1, all surface drainage shall be directed to existing stormwater inlets. In some areas such as the example below, the existing gutter does not provide positive drainage, leading to ponding. We suggest a line item of 200LF of curb and gutter reconstruction to improve positive drainage in these areas.

802 CES Response: We add the replacement of the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and inlets to the SOW.

10. Several widespread areas have the condition shown below, a crowned street into a spill curb (instead of a catch curb). In this condition, stormwater runs along the blue line instead of the gutter, which saturates the pavement section and leads to pavement failure as shown below. These areas are very difficult to identify visually, instead needing surveyed grades to confirm flow directions. We suggest a bid line item for replacement of these curbs, gutters, and adjacent sidewalk to avoid a tripping hazard. We would recommend an allowance of 1000 LF of curb replacement be included in the bid to alleviate these conditions.

802 CES Response: See response #9

11. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.c, re-establishment of earthen swales as noted. No earthen swales were noted or discussed, please specify location and limits of these areas on a drawing or photograph.

802 CES Response: SOW was updated to provide clarity.

12. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.e, curb height shall be a minimum of 6” post construction. As no curb modifications are proposed with this project, curb heights will remain as existing, which may be less than 6”. Suggest removing this requirement for existing curbs or adding an allowance for certain linear footage of curb replacement.

802 CES Response: See response #9

13. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.2 and Attachment 2 Appendix A, a new crosswalk is proposed at Forage Road. See below sketch, the area in blue must be at 2% maximum in any direction, and the area in red must have a 2% maximum cross-slope to meet ADA requirements. This will require a large section of the existing road to be reconstructed complete and create a substantial ramp obstruction as you drive down Hardee Road, leading to vehicles bottoming out and driver discomfort. The existing road would be estimated at 8% grade. Please provide further direction regarding the extents of this reconstruction (areas of Forage Road will have to be reconstructed to complete this transition), or suggest an alternate area for this crosswalk where the Hardee Road longitudinal slope is less severe.

802 CES Response: The extents of reconstruction in order to place required ADA ramps is up the Design Engineer and Government concurrence during the Design Phase.

14. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.3, 35 calendar days are provided for the 95% design. At NTP, a dig permit is applied for which usually takes 7 days to complete, with base markings of existing utilities (completed by FSH). At this point, an existing conditions survey is performed, which will likely take 7 days. This information is then processed, taking an additional 7 days. This accumulated total is, best case, 21 days before design work can even begin. Suggest making this initial submittal a 65% submittal and allowing 56 days from NTP for completion. 95% suggest allowing 70 days for completion.

802 CES Response: We added 51 days to the design phase for the 65% design submittal.

15. Please provide a laydown and staging area for this project as none was noted. We would suggest the large open area in Phase 3 across from the tennis courts and turf field.

802 CES Response: Contractor must submit a Contractor Laydown Area Request after award per SOW, and “request shall be submitted as early as possible. Approval process will take one to three months to complete”.

16. Per 01 11 00 Summary of Work 1.2.1.i.h, a traffic control plan is required. Please provide more guidance on what will be required as this information is not provided within the guidance of the “Traffic Controls for Street and Highway Construction and Maintenance Operations”. Does this consist of proper road closed barricades only, or is more required such as detour signs, advance warning signs, flagmen, digital signs, etc?

802 CES Response: SOW has been updated to provide more guidance on TCP expectations.

17. Per 01 35 13.10 00 Special Procedures – Surveying 3.1.2, a kickoff meeting shall be scheduled with the survey manager and survey chief, one of which is an RPLS. Suggest removing this requirement. Generally, survey field crew are not RPLS, and rather are managed by them. Field surveys generally do not require these qualifications as property lines and easements are not part of the task on a military base. Having this meeting and required personnel will be costly and provide no benefit.

802 CES Response: We removed the requirement of a survey manager and survey chief, one of which is an RPLS to attend the kick-off meeting. However, a kick-off meeting will still be held at the beginning of the project before any work begins.

18. Per 01 35 13.10 00 Special Procedures – Surveying 3.3.4, field books shall be provided. Suggest removing this requirement for this type of project as all survey data is collected digitally within the survey equipment and is not manually processed.

802 CES Response: This requirement has been removed from the 01 35 13.10 00.

19. Per 01 57 19 Temporary Environmental Controls 1.3 SD-11 Closeout Submittals, an as-built topography survey is required. Suggest instead, record drawings only. Record drawings are more accurate and are updated with any field conditions differing from the design, serving as as-builts for the project. This is confirmed by 01 78 00 Closeout Submittals 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and

3.1. As-built drawings in this case are the contractor redlined construction plans.

802 CES Response: This spec has been removed as it is a considered a duplicate to spec 01 57 19 Environmental Protection.

20. SOW Paragraph 1.2.1.3 states contractor to abate yellow pavement markings. Although the entire project area consists of yellow pavement markings, Appendix C Page 1 of 10 indicates a test on 4/13/2023 which states William Hardee Road from Winfield Scott to Forage Ave. are positive for lead based paint. Winfield Scott to Forage only encompasses Phases 2 and 3 of this project. Please confirm there is no lead based paint abatement in Phase 1 as it is not indicated in the report.

802 CES Response: The yellow paint in the middle of the road has lead containing material for all phases.

21. Can the government provide as built drawings of the existing roadway so we can evaluate what type of material will be removed to properly account for expected disposal costs? What is the asphalt thickness? Base thickness? Etc.?

802 CES Response: As-built drawings are not available. However, recent core samples have been collected for depth information only. SOW has been updated to include existing pavement depths.

22. Related to the previous question, if As-Builts are not available, what thickness of asphalt should the contractor assume for removal purposes?

802 CES Response: See response #21.

23. If As-Builts are not available, what thickness of base should the contractor assume for removal purposes?

24. The SOW does not establish an asphalt binder requirement. Does the government require a specific binder (PG64-22, PG70-22, or PG76-22)? We recommend PG 70-22 for this application.

Please advise if that will be required or if another binder will be required?

802 CES Response: Contractor may use PG 70-22 for bidding purposes. However, the binder type must be selected by the DOR and approved by the Government. SOW has been updated accordingly.

25. SOW states to use “TXDOT” Type D and “TXDOT” Type B. What TXDOT spec are we talking about? TXDOT 340 Dense Graded Mix or TXDOT 344 Superpave Mix. My recommendation would be TXDOT 340 for Type B and TXDOT 344 for Type D. Please confirm that TXDOT guidance should be utilized for asphalt versus UFGS mix design requirements.

802 CES Response: For estimating purposes, contractor may assume TXDOT 340 applies. The asphalt must be specified by the DOR and approved by the Government.

SOW has been updated accordingly.

26. During the site walk a 6’ tall construction fence was discussed on the neighborhood side of the road during construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2. Please confirm this requirement.

802 CES Response: Contractor shall install a six (6) feet fence between the sidewalk and the housing neighborhood during each phase of construction. SOW has been updated accordingly.

27. Does the laydown area require fencing?

802 CES Response: Yes, fencing is required. Refer to specification 01 50 00, paragraph

2.3 Fencing for fence requirements.

28. Section 01 11 00 Paragraph 1.3.1 states existing roadway markings contain lead based paint so abatement is required. As this work is outdoors, is it acceptable to remove via milling provided 8 hours of air monitoring is performed and the operator of the machine has lead awareness training and be fit with a respirator if an open cab or air monitoring only if performed in a closed cab?

802 CES Response: The Contractor must submit a Lead Abatement Plan per the Environmental Specification that will be reviewed by Environmental for approval.

29. Can milling of lead markings be performed provided trucks are lined properly and lead is disposed of in accordance with state regulations? This is recommended as manual means of removal is very costly and will extend the length of the project.

802 CES Response: See response #28

30. If milling of markings is not acceptable what does the base require for removal of the lead paint pavement markings?

802 CES Response: yes it is acceptable to remove paint pavement marking.

31. Section 01 57 20 paragraph 3.1.4.1 states that soil must be transported to an approved TCEQ permitted disposal location approved by 802 CES/CEIE. TCEQ permitted disposal facilities classify soil as Class II special waste even when testing shows the soil is clean of any contaminants.

Please confirm that disposal at a TCEQ permitted disposal location is required and that recycling the soil is not permitted.

802 CES Response:

a. Disposal is required at an approved TCEQ landfill. Tesseman Landfill or Covel Garden are the only JBSA approved landfills.

b. Lab analysis will be required in accordance with 01 57 20, paragraph 3.1.4.1

c. Results shall be provided to Hazardous Waste Manager for review and approval.

d. A waste profile will have to be established.

f. Waste profiles shall be submitted, and Manifests shall be generated. Only the JBSA Environmental Office will sign as the generator for the profile sheets and manifest.

g. This is required for all waste generated at JBSA, Haz, Non-Haz, Special, and recycling.

32. Section 01 57 20 references a JBSA Soil Management Plan. A JBSA Soil Management Plan was not included in the bidding documents. If this is required to be followed can the government provide bidders with the Soil Management Plan.

802 CES Response: Soil Management Plan will be provided in Appendix F.

33. The cost to dispose of soil as Class II Non Hazardous waste at a landfill typically cost in excess of $40/ton so can be a major cost item for this type of project without bringing specific value to the project. Please confirm whether this is the expected requirement for soil disposal on this project?

802 CES Response: Yes, assume it is Non-Hazardous. See response #31 for additional requirements.

34. Please confirm that aggregate base is considered a recyclable material and does not require disposal as Class II Non Hazardous waste at a TCEQ permitted facility as it is not soil. If aggregate base must be disposed as Class II waste versus recycled, at approximately 2304 tons of material at a disposal of $40/ton, disposal of aggregate would cost in excess of $90,000. We need to clearly identify aggregate base as not soil to avoid this unnecessary cost to the project and risk to the contractor.

802 CES Response: Clean aggregate material can be recycled. The recycling facility has to provide a certificate of recycling, sign a manifest, and provide weight tickets. We would need to know the name of the recycling facility.

35. A previous question requested information on the current thickness of asphalt and base.

Without this information we cannot properly determine the quantity of material that may be required to be disposed at a TCEQ licensed landfill which could lead to a conservative estimate by contractors that could create budget issues for the project. Please advise what the current pavement section is so we know at what depth we should assume soil may be hit that would require TCEQ disposal.